Tajmahal Transports (P.) Ltd. vs The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and Another

Veeraswami, J.—The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Tirunelveli, by his order, dated February 14, 1964 granted to the second

Respondent, on his application, a temporary permit for a period of four months in respect of his bus MDU 4584 to ply on the route Tirunelveli

Town to Melapalayam via Melanatham. By the same order he also fixed a schedule of timings for the bus. This petition is to quash this order.

This Court in S. Pachayyappa Mudaliar Vs. S.S. Motor Service (P) Ltd. and Others, held that the power u/s 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act

should be used only in case of a temporary need. In Writ Petition No. 431 of 1963, S.N. Thanapala Nadar, Proprietor Sri Sugumar Transport

Tirunelveli v. The Regional Transport Authority Tirunelveli and Ors. it was held that where an application for a permanent permit is pending

disposal, no temporary permit for the same route could be granted. This view was based upon the construction of the scope of the first proviso to

Section 62. This principle has also been extended to cases of variation of routes. In the light of these principles the Petitioner submits that the first

Respondent has failed to apply them and, in fact, in disregard of them he has granted the temporary permit. ""On the other hand, the contention for

the second Respondent is that the route covered by the temporary permit now under question is not the same route as is involved in the application

of February 1962 made by the transferor of the second Respondent and, in any case, the temporary permit has been granted not to the original

Applicant but to the transferee Applicant and that further between the last grant of the temporary permit and the permit in this case there was a

gap.

The main route covered by the permanent permit is Palayapettai to Tirunelveli Junction via Tirunelveli Town and Kurukkuthurai. The variation

sought in the application, dated February 1962, is Kurukkuthurai to Melapalayam via Melanatham. The temporary permit now issued to the

second Respondent is on the route Tirunelveli Town to Melapalayam via Kurukkuthurai and Melanatham. In substance it will be clear that the

temporary permit is in relation to the route Kurukkuthurai to Melapalayam via Melanatham. The rest of the route covered by the temporary permit

is already part of the original route to which the permanent permit applies Obviously, therefore, as it seems to me, the temporary permit now issued

covers the identical variation which the application, dated February 1962, asked for. That application is still, I am told, pending disposal. To say

the least, the first Respondent has indulged in a sort of juggling in order to by-pass the two decisions of this Court which in effect forbade him from

granting the temporary permit. Such attempt on his part is highly reprehensible. When this Court interprets a statutory provision and declares the

Jaw it is binding on all the administrative officers and they are obliged to follow the same and give effect to it. The temporary permit granted by the

first Respondent is contrary to the first proviso to Section 62.

The temporary permit is also contrary to the principle laid down by this Court in S. Pachayyappa Mudaliar Vs. S.S. Motor Service (P) Ltd. and

Others, namely, that the temporary permit can be issued only in case of a temporary need. A temporary permit was issued for the route

Kurukkuthurai to Melapalayam via Melanatham almost successively from January 11, 1962. The first temporary permit was in force between

January 1962 and May 10, 1962. It was again and again issued and re-issued between May 11, 1962 and September 10, 1962, September 11,

1962 and January 10, 1963, January 11, 1963 and May 10, 1963, and finally May 11, 1963 and September 11, 1963. The decision of this Court

in Writ Petition No. 431 of 1963, was pronounced on August 16, 1963. Evidently because of this judgment the temporary permit was not

renewed between September 11, 1963 and February 15, 1964. The successive issue and renewals of the temporary permit will show beyond

doubt that the need here was hardly temporary. That being the case, the first Respondent was bound to follow the principle laid down by this

Court in S. Pachayyappa Mudaliar Vs. S.S. Motor Service (P) Ltd. and Others, He cannot pretend that merely because there was a small gap in

time between September 11, 1963 and February 15, 1964, that made any difference to the application of the principle of that decision. The

second contention of the second Respondent is that he is a transferee and the original Applicant is the transferor, but that plainly cannot affect the

position that where an application for a permanent permit is pending, no temporary permit can be issued. This principle will equally apply to cases

of variation and where the need is permanent as may be seen from the facts, no temporary permit can be issued properly u/s 62 .

The order of the first Respondent is quashed and the petition is allowed.

I direct the first Respondent to pay the Petitioner costs personally.